Will Peyton Manning's reputation suffer (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

It kind of is, though. See for example cherry-picking the last four years of regular season results but their entire careers' worth of postseason results. Pick one set of data or the other, or both, but don't pick one set for your regular season stat comparison and the other for your postseason success comparison.

Manning has a Superbowl. That's not cherry picking, it's a fact. Nobody can take that away from him, even if his numbers that postseason were terrible. When we talk about his postseason accomplishments, we can say, on the one hand, he's 9-10 overall. On the other hand, he has a Superbowl. Brady has been incredible over his last three seasons. That's not cherry picking, it's a fact. Nobody can take that away from him, even if he didn't win the 2007 Superbowl. When we talk about Brady's numbers, we can say, on the one hand, Manning had better numbers for much of his career. On the other hand, once Brady got some receivers, he won a pair of MVPs, put up arguably* the best passing season in history, and had as good or better numbers than Manning. This isn't cherry picking. It's part of the conversation. I don't know why you have to act like it's incredibly biased to say, man, look at the numbers Brady has put up recently, without first saying, but Manning has been putting up good numbers for years. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread knows that. I'm bringing up points that people might not realize that support my case. They are useful and correct points, and I'm not ashamed of making my case for something I believe to be correct. If you want to talk about biased, how about some of your responses? Are you suggesting that you're being completely unbiased in your rebuttals? I'm not complaining about it, I'm just saying there's a little bit of pot and kettle going on here.

 

[bostonfred]

Or the game immediately before that one, when he threw three picks and had a 57.6 passer rating and almost let a clearly inferior San Diego team steal the game?

Yes, that 14-2 Charger team with their 4th ranked offense and 10th ranked defense and league MVP were "clearly inferior" to the 12-4 Pats with their 11 ranked offense and 6th ranked defense. The Chargers were only 8-0 at home up to that point.

Thanks for the correction. Do you think the Patriots win that game if Brady has even a mediocre day against that tenth-ranked defense? I don't. I think if 51 pass attempts produce less than 300 yards and three INTs along with two short TDs (neither longer than six yards), the responsibility for the loss falls primarily to the passing game. Not that even that matters- the broader point is that both players have had some great, some bad and some OK playoff games, and that their career playoff numbers are virtually identical. The fact that Brady's team has a better record in those games is due mostly to factors outside of the two QB's control.

Which factors outside Manning's control led him to throw 4 INTs in a playoff game? Which factors outside Manning's control led him to get shut out against the Jets? Which factors outside Manning's control led him to pick up just three points in his record setting season? Brady has never done any of those things. Can you even imagine the Patriots getting shut out for a full game under Brady? Manning having huge games against KC and Denver a few years back might make his overall numbers look similar to Brady's, but Manning has not been as consistently good in the postseason as Brady. Manning's numbers may be influenced by playing against playoff caliber defenses, but it's the playoffs. Everyone has playoff caliber defenses. They might be skewed by playing a couple games outdoors, but Brady's played more games outdoors in the snow or subzero temperatures than Manning. The similarity in their numbers is a lie told with statistics.

 

[DesmondBishop]

To answer the OP's question, I don't think so. He is already a 1st ballot HOF'er and may have every passing record by the time he is done (Besides picks) and he has a SB victory. I am not sure why every time anyone asks a Manning question people have to drag Brady into it. Brady is clearly one of the best ever post season QB's, we get it.

 

[Abraham]

The number of quarterbacks who have won a Super Bowl is very small. How small? 10 QBs have combined to win 26 Super Bowls. That means 18 other QBs have a single Super Bowl ring, right? So a TOTAL of 28 quarterbacks in the history of the NFL have Super Bowl rings as starters.

In other words, I think that while it would certainly enhance his career to win more then one, it in no way minimizes his accomplishments if he never does.

 

[kyoun1e]

Manning had his worst game of the season in the playoffs in 7 out of 10 losses. This is actually a debate?He's still easily top 10 QB's to play the game even if he never wins another playoff game, but Peyton is pretty much the opposite of guys like Joe Montana and Kurt Warner who typically excelled in the playoffs.

Yup.Would love for somebody to post Manning's stats in his 9 losses and the total points scored in these games. Along with the 9-10 record, I'd guess those other numbers don't look so good. Manning's great, but these playoff numbers are starting to stack up. That's the problem for Manning lovers. Whether you like it or not, a story is being painted. KY

 

[kyoun1e]

Which factors outside Manning's control led him to throw 4 INTs in a playoff game? Which factors outside Manning's control led him to get shut out against the Jets? Which factors outside Manning's control led him to pick up just three points in his record setting season? Brady has never done any of those things. Can you even imagine the Patriots getting shut out for a full game under Brady?

There should be a "stinker" stat.How many times does a QB just flat out stink up the joint in critical games. Manning takes this by a mile over Brady. Directly contributing to that 9-10 playoff record.KY

 

[shortbow]

Just to inject some more fuel for this fire.

Am I the only one that thinks Manning getting the MVP in 2009 was complete BS?

 

[Choke]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

 

[DropKick]

BTW, in Manning's 49 TD season, he had a higher TD/Att ratio than Brady in Brady's 50 TD season, and Manning sat out almost all of week 17 in his record breaking season. It's likely he would have added 2 or 3 TDs that game had he played.

How many would Brady have had if he played half of his games indoors during his record breaking year? It's likely he would have added 2 or 3 more TD's over those 8 games.

Not sure it would have, given his dome games that season weren't any better than his "outside" games.I'm pretty sure not playing is quite different than playing inside versus outside. Nice try though.

Marino had 48 TDs in his first full season. Consider that for a minute. Both Manning and subsequently Brady knew where the mark was set. And certainly the NFL has changed over the years into the pass happy game it is today.This is probably the 10th time I've seen you in the same debate. I don't really care who threw more TDs (50 & 49 are both fine seasons) but I hate the "he sat down in the last game and woulda, shoulda, couda" argument.

Brady did play in a couple games with crappy weather conditions. He was on pace to obliterate the record. The outdoor variables (wind, rain, snow, etc.) likely had just as much impact on the "final" numbers as sitting down.

Here is an except form the nfl.com on one of those games:

"Windy conditions made it difficult for both teams' passing games. Brady, averaging 315 yards per game, threw a season-low 140 yards on 14-of-27 passing and did not throw a touchdown pass. The Jets didn't fair much better, going a combined 25-of-40 for 186 yards and no touchdowns between Kellen Clemens, Chad Pennington and Brad Smith."

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

haha...yeah, I remember that game --- pretty miserable conditions.

it was like they were playing on one of those water slip n slides.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

here are manning's playoff losses, so we can see how he might've done if only he had the mighty pats' defense, and a guy who could kick fg's.........

(I calculated '99 and '00 qb rating myself, so they might be eff'd)*

1999

19/42, 227yds, 5.4 ypa, 0/0 td/int, 62 qb rating

2000

17/32, 194, 6.0, 1/0, 82 qbr

2002

14/31, 137 yds, 4.4 ypa, 0/2 (td/int), 31 qb rating

2003

23/47, 237, 5.0, 1/4, 35 qbr

2004

27/42, 238, 5.7, 0/1, 69

2005

22/38, 290, 7.6, 1/0, 90

(2006)

superbowl winning year -- over 4 games he averaged:

25/41, 275, 6.7, 70 qbr, while totaling 3/7 on td/int

opponents averaged 16 ppg

2007

33/48, 402, 8.4, 3/2, 98

2008

25/42, 310, 7.4, 1/0, 90

2009

31/45, 333, 7.4, 1/1, 88

2010

18/26, 225, 8.7, 1/0, 109

10 losses average:

23/39 (59%), 259 ypg, 6.6 ypa, 1/1 td/int, 75 qb rating

(for perspective mcnabb, who was benched for rex grossman, produced the following this past year........

58%, 260, 7.16, 1/1 td/int, 77 qbr)

compared with the 4 winning games in 2006

25/41 (61%), 275 ypg, 6.7 ypa, .75 / 1.75 td/int, 70 qb rating

(opponents averaged 16 ppg)

I didn't bother to go through the boxes and see if indy made any fg's in those 10 games, but judging by the data I'd say he was as much to blame as anybody in the losses, and the team carried his ### to a superbowl ring in '06.

GOAT....?



* edit: wtf....there's an online calculator.....??

http://brucey.net/nflab/statistics/qb_rating.html

 

[Hellfire Snail]

here are manning's playoff losses, so we can see how he might've done if only he had the mighty pats' defense, and a guy who could kick fg's.........

(I calculated '99 and '00 qb rating myself, so they might be eff'd)*

1999

19/42, 227yds, 5.4 ypa, 0/0 td/int, 62 qb rating

2000

17/32, 194, 6.0, 1/0, 82 qbr

2002

14/31, 137 yds, 4.4 ypa, 0/2 (td/int), 31 qb rating

2003

23/47, 237, 5.0, 1/4, 35 qbr

2004

27/42, 238, 5.7, 0/1, 69

2005

22/38, 290, 7.6, 1/0, 90

(2006)

superbowl winning year -- over 4 games he averaged:

25/41, 275, 6.7, 70 qbr, while totaling 3/7 on td/int

opponents averaged 16 ppg

2007

33/48, 402, 8.4, 3/2, 98

2008

25/42, 310, 7.4, 1/0, 90

2009

31/45, 333, 7.4, 1/1, 88

2010

18/26, 225, 8.7, 1/0, 109

10 losses average:

23/39 (59%), 259 ypg, 6.6 ypa, 1/1 td/int, 75 qb rating

(for perspective mcnabb, who was benched for rex grossman, produced the following this past year........

58%, 260, 7.16, 1/1 td/int, 77 qbr)

compared with the 4 winning games in 2006

25/41 (61%), 275 ypg, 6.7 ypa, .75 / 1.75 td/int, 70 qb rating

(opponents averaged 16 ppg)

I didn't bother to go through the boxes and see if indy made any fg's in those 10 games, but judging by the data I'd say he was as much to blame as anybody in the losses, and the team carried his ### to a superbowl ring in '06.

GOAT....?



* edit: wtf....there's an online calculator.....??

http://brucey.net/nflab/statistics/qb_rating.html

That's pretty ugly. Never having examined it before, I'm surprised by how few touchdowns he's thrown in playoff games.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Or the game immediately before that one, when he threw three picks and had a 57.6 passer rating and almost let a clearly inferior San Diego team steal the game?

Yes, that 14-2 Charger team with their 4th ranked offense and 10th ranked defense and league MVP were "clearly inferior" to the 12-4 Pats with their 11 ranked offense and 6th ranked defense. The Chargers were only 8-0 at home up to that point.

Thanks for the correction. Do you think the Patriots win that game if Brady has even a mediocre day against that tenth-ranked defense? I don't. I think if 51 pass attempts produce less than 300 yards and three INTs along with two short TDs (neither longer than six yards), the responsibility for the loss falls primarily to the passing game. Not that even that matters- the broader point is that both players have had some great, some bad and some OK playoff games, and that their career playoff numbers are virtually identical. The fact that Brady's team has a better record in those games is due mostly to factors outside of the two QB's control.

I have to call foul on the bolded portion.Let me start by saying Brady has clearly benefited at times from having a better def and that has clearly helped his playoff W-L record and Manning has played better in the playoffs than many give him credit for.

Both qbs win when their D plays lights out and lose when the D is horrible, but I think there is a difference when the games are somewhere in between.

If you look at the games where each QBs defense gave up 24 or less points (in playoffs) you will see that NE consistently scored more points which enabled them to win a lot more of those games. Does Brady get all the credit for scoring more points? No, but he did produce more points and td's and you see a pattern with Manning where the Colts just don't put up enough points to win even though they get a good defensive effort out of their own team. You also have to consider the fact that manning has been at home and had some pretty damn good offenses in these games.

This last game was a good example, the Indy defense holds the jets to 17 points and they still lose. Did Manning play badly? No, but 16 points at home is dissapointing. It is far from the first time it has happened. If NE holds the Jets to 17 points or less this week I expect NE will win and if they don't win, it will in all likelyhood be fair to place a large portion of the blame on the offense and Brady. There is always the potential for extenuating circumstances such as bad weather or rec/rbs fumbling the ball in the rz etc and that can be taken into account. However, primarily it is the qbs job to lead the offense and score points.

If you started a poll before the Indy/NYJ playoff game and asked how many people thought Indy would win if they held the Jets to 17 or less, is there any doubt 80-90% would have predicted an Indy win?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

well, bear in mind those aren't all his playoff games.

I chronicled 10 losses + 4 wins in the superbowl winning year --- think he had 5 other playoff wins where he did pretty good.

but, the point being he had twice that number of mediocre to bad games resulting in losses, and his 4 game superbowl run was actually statistically worse than his losses.

edit: by the way, this might not be 100% accurate as I was just skimming games, but I think that of those 10 playoff losses, manning's defense allowed over 24 points only 3 times.

bear in mind I just looked at final scores, so I haven't weeded out defensive scores and special teams, and I didn't try to account for points resulting from manning picks.

on second thought, make that 2 games out of 10, subtracting out the NO superbowl where the saints scored off manning's pick.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

or, to sum up.........

his reputation is a choker in money games --- doesn't look like it's suffering any.

 

[Jason Wood]

The number of quarterbacks who have won a Super Bowl is very small. How small? 10 QBs have combined to win 26 Super Bowls. That means 18 other QBs have a single Super Bowl ring, right? So a TOTAL of 28 quarterbacks in the history of the NFL have Super Bowl rings as starters. In other words, I think that while it would certainly enhance his career to win more then one, it in no way minimizes his accomplishments if he never does.

That's not true though because the debate isn't whether Manning is going to be thought of as great, but WHERE in the pantheon of all-time greats he's going to rank. In that world, every bit matters, including an (in)ability to get a second title. Let's remember Manning was just listed, by a huge group of NFL writers, former players, etc...as one of the 10 best PLAYERS (not just QBs) in NFL history. And he ranked 3rd among all QBs, 8th overall, and 13 spots higher than Brady, his contemporary. With Brady likely gaining another MVP this year, and possibly another shot at the Super Bowl, I guarantee you that had this 100 Player list been done 12 months later than it was, the rankings would be much tighter between the two, if not swapped.

 

[Gachi]

Manning is great in the regular season, not so good in the post-season.

/Thread

 

[Raider Nation]

With Brady likely gaining another MVP this year, and possibly another shot at the Super Bowl, I guarantee you that had this 100 Player list been done 12 months later than it was, the rankings would be much tighter between the two, if not swapped.

Pretty much what I wrote last month.

 

[Daywalker]

Manning has one signature moment. The comeback vs. NE.

The fact that we have this thread and not a Brady one says he is not in Brady's class. That and the "Manning" face say he is closer to the #10 all-time QB then #1.

9-10 against the big boys sucks. Point blank.

 

[kyoun1e]

here are manning's playoff losses, so we can see how he might've done if only he had the mighty pats' defense, and a guy who could kick fg's.........

(I calculated '99 and '00 qb rating myself, so they might be eff'd)*

1999

19/42, 227yds, 5.4 ypa, 0/0 td/int, 62 qb rating

2000

17/32, 194, 6.0, 1/0, 82 qbr

2002

14/31, 137 yds, 4.4 ypa, 0/2 (td/int), 31 qb rating

2003

23/47, 237, 5.0, 1/4, 35 qbr

2004

27/42, 238, 5.7, 0/1, 69

2005

22/38, 290, 7.6, 1/0, 90

(2006)

superbowl winning year -- over 4 games he averaged:

25/41, 275, 6.7, 70 qbr, while totaling 3/7 on td/int

opponents averaged 16 ppg

2007

33/48, 402, 8.4, 3/2, 98

2008

25/42, 310, 7.4, 1/0, 90

2009

31/45, 333, 7.4, 1/1, 88

2010

18/26, 225, 8.7, 1/0, 109

10 losses average:

23/39 (59%), 259 ypg, 6.6 ypa, 1/1 td/int, 75 qb rating

(for perspective mcnabb, who was benched for rex grossman, produced the following this past year........

58%, 260, 7.16, 1/1 td/int, 77 qbr)

compared with the 4 winning games in 2006

25/41 (61%), 275 ypg, 6.7 ypa, .75 / 1.75 td/int, 70 qb rating

(opponents averaged 16 ppg)

I didn't bother to go through the boxes and see if indy made any fg's in those 10 games, but judging by the data I'd say he was as much to blame as anybody in the losses, and the team carried his ### to a superbowl ring in '06.

GOAT....?



* edit: wtf....there's an online calculator.....??

http://brucey.net/nflab/statistics/qb_rating.html

The stats for the early losses (1999 - 2005) are terrible. There's no other way to look at it.That said, after 2006, his performance in losses don't look that bad (although I can't remember if he had any brutal picks that cost them the game).

Either way, the 9-10 record and the above stats are not terribly impressive.

Like I've said, the data is starting to stack up.

If Manning doesn't win another championship he starts to drift towards Favre territory.

So the answer to the OP question is YES.

KY

 

[TobiasFunke]

It kind of is, though. See for example cherry-picking the last four years of regular season results but their entire careers' worth of postseason results. Pick one set of data or the other, or both, but don't pick one set for your regular season stat comparison and the other for your postseason success comparison.

Manning has a Superbowl. That's not cherry picking, it's a fact. Nobody can take that away from him, even if his numbers that postseason were terrible. When we talk about his postseason accomplishments, we can say, on the one hand, he's 9-10 overall. On the other hand, he has a Superbowl. Brady has been incredible over his last three seasons. That's not cherry picking, it's a fact. Nobody can take that away from him, even if he didn't win the 2007 Superbowl. When we talk about Brady's numbers, we can say, on the one hand, Manning had better numbers for much of his career. On the other hand, once Brady got some receivers, he won a pair of MVPs, put up arguably* the best passing season in history, and had as good or better numbers than Manning. This isn't cherry picking. It's part of the conversation. I don't know why you have to act like it's incredibly biased to say, man, look at the numbers Brady has put up recently, without first saying, but Manning has been putting up good numbers for years. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread knows that. I'm bringing up points that people might not realize that support my case. They are useful and correct points, and I'm not ashamed of making my case for something I believe to be correct. If you want to talk about biased, how about some of your responses? Are you suggesting that you're being completely unbiased in your rebuttals? I'm not complaining about it, I'm just saying there's a little bit of pot and kettle going on here.

For what it's worth, what you wrote here is not cherry-picking, but what you did before was. One can make useful and correct points and still cherry-pick. You looked at one set of data for one thing (postseason success- career) and another set of data for another thing (regular season stats- last four years). Those things are part of the conversation as you say but so are postseason success in the last four years and regular season stats for careers. By choosing to look at each of the two issues in the manner most favoring your guy, you were cherry-picking.I'm sure I'm probably biased, but if I am it's only because of the unreasonableness of Patriots fans on this issue, which makes me inclined to challenge them. I'm actually a big fan of Tom Brady- I love the way he plays and the way he carries himself on and off the field. In fact if you look back at my posts you'll probably never find one in which I conclude that Manning is superior overall. I think they're both pretty close to the same, and they're both easily in my top 5 of all time, maybe top two. If anything they're both underrated. I just take issue with arguments that make conclusions about individuals based on team performance. It shows a lack of understanding of sports and the control over the outcome, or lack thereof, that one person can have. I don't like it when Lakers fans do it with respect to Kobe and anyone else, I don't like it when Patriots fans do it with respect to Brady and anyone else, and so on.

 

[Big_Russel]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

Interesting. I didn't realize that quarterbacks had some sort of "playoffs." What do they do? See who can throw the ball the furthest, who can throw it through a tire from the longest distance or the most times out of 100, etc? Can you give me a link to read up on these quarterback singles playoffs? Sounds interesting.

 

[Big_Russel]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

Interesting. I didn't realize that quarterbacks had some sort of "playoffs." What do they do? See who can throw the ball the furthest, who can throw it through a tire from the longest distance or the most times out of 100, etc? Can you give me a link to read up on these quarterback singles playoffs? Sounds interesting.

You can downplay it... but it's a black mark on an otherwise amazing career. Peyton tends to come up short when it matters most. That's been the book on him since his days at Tennessee.

 

[kyoun1e]

Peyton tends to come up short when it matters most. That's been the book on him since his days at Tennessee.

U of Florida fans would probably agree with this.KY

 

[switz]

Ummm... I didn't say Manning had better numbers this year, did I?

No, you said "Brady has NOT put up better regular season numbers over the last few years. Manning has more yards every season except one, better completion percentage in all but one season, they've split the TD passes, Manning better in 2, Brady better in 2, in fact in 2009 Manning was better in nearly every category... I'm sure you'll excuse Brady due to him recovering from knee surgery, but when Manning has recovered from knee surgery it hasn't seemed to hurt him at all."

Exactly, so to answer my question (which you dind't) I did NOT say Manning had better numbers than Brady this year...Manning and Brady have had comparable numbers (when Brady played) over the last few years ... few meaning more than one, and over meaning as a group, not on an individual basis.

You can't try to use the last 4 years as a span of data, then try to say the year Brady was out (during that 4 year span) shouldn't count when comparing the two. Manning threw more TDs that year than Brady, that's a fact, regardless of the "why." There's no way to know what Brady would have put up in TDs, he only had 28 the year he came back, and Manning had 27 the year Brady missed, it's possible Brady would have thrown more TDs that year, it's also possible he wouldn't have. What happened is he missed most of the season, and didn't throw a TD in the 11 passes he did throw, which is pretty meaningless.

As for the reason I picked the last four years, there are a couple reasons. First, in 2006, Brady was throwing to a receiving corps led by Reche Caldwell. The improvement in talent at WR to something closer to the level Manning has enjoyed throughout his career led to a notable and predictable increase in Brady's numbers. And despite your past protestations, we now know that it wasn't just Moss, because we saw Brady put up MVP caliber numbers without him, or Welker, because this was Welker's worst year as a Patriot. Second, it's not cherry picking to show a span of Brady's career in which he outperformed Manning. I think eveyone, including me, gives Manning credit for putting up big regular season numbers for an extended period of time. The question in comparing the two was whether Brady was capable of putting up the same kind of numbers. And he's answered that question by doing it repeatedly.

So, using the last 4 years is ok because "now Brady has a cast of WRs comparable to Manning" I love how you continue to act like Branch is not a good WR, when in fact, when healthy he's an exceptional WR, he's just had troubles staying healthy. And "closer to", as if not as good but almost? Moss/Welker as a combo are pretty much better than anything Manning ever had. Even this season, despite it being "Welker's worst as a Patriot", Branch Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are easily on par with the best set of Colts WRs Manning EVER had... plus a better running game than Manning has had since the days of Edge.BTW, what Brady has done "better" than Manning the last few years is throw TDs. And that's not all that's involved in QBing. Manning has more yards this year and last. Over the last TWO years, Manning has thrown more TDs (66 to 64). Heck, Manning even has a better comp % this year, despite throwing nearly 200 more passes, and playing against defenses who did not have to defend the run.

Oh, as far as Indoors/Outdoors... this year and last year Manning had a much higher rating outdoor than indoor. So it's blatantly wrong to say his rating is higher because he plays indoors. It's likely his rating would be higher if he played more outdoors, since outdoor football favors WRs versus DBs.

We could go on and on, but it won't matter. Manning bashers seem to all be Brady lovers, who need to bash Manning to prop up Brady.

The fact is, if Manning's defense and special teams were half as good as Brady's typically have been, Manning would already have more rings. Manning has been expected to carry the Colts by himself pretty much every season. The Patriots have always had more balanced teams, with better coaching, and better fundamentals. Anyone who uses the # of rings to judge how good or bad a player is lacks a basic understanding of team sports.

And anyone trying to pin this past weekends loss on Manning, or even thinking it supports a "choker" argument doesn't know what they're talking about. He had a nearly 70% completion percentage, while only once throwing to Reggie Wayne (the reason Manning bashers like to say he's successful), and a 108.9 QB rating, no INTs despite the Jets fortifying their secondary purely to be prepared to face Peyton Manning.

But if Manning "choked" against the Jets, what did Brady do against Baltimore last year? Did Brady choke against the Giants? He had a worse game than Manning did on Saturday. Despite beating SD that season, it's arguable that Brady played worse in that game than Manning did Saturday. Did Brady choke against Indy in 2006? Sure seems that way to me...

I guess we can say that Manning was a choker early in his career, but Brady is the choker later in his career. If we want to call things objectively that is... but I highly doubt that's in the Brady fans repertoire.

 

[TobiasFunke]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

Interesting. I didn't realize that quarterbacks had some sort of "playoffs." What do they do? See who can throw the ball the furthest, who can throw it through a tire from the longest distance or the most times out of 100, etc? Can you give me a link to read up on these quarterback singles playoffs? Sounds interesting.

You can downplay it... but it's a black mark on an otherwise amazing career. Peyton tends to come up short when it matters most. That's been the book on him since his days at Tennessee.

Manning in the playoffs (19 games): 453/718 for 5,389 yards (63.1%), 29 TDs and 19 INTs (1.53 ratio), passer rating of 88.4, yards/attempt of 7.51. 23 carries for 27 yards and 3 touchdowns.Brady in the playoffs (18 games): 395/637 for 4,108 yards (62.0%), 28 TDs and 15 INTs (1.87 ratio), passer rating of 85.5, yards/ attempt of 6.45. 42 carries for 68 yards and 2 touchdowns.

So does Brady also come up short when it matters most? Or are they both pretty decent- you know, since their playoff numbers are basically identical- and maybe their teams' playoff W/L records are a result of something other than QB performance?

 

[Warsteinner]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

Interesting. I didn't realize that quarterbacks had some sort of "playoffs." What do they do? See who can throw the ball the furthest, who can throw it through a tire from the longest distance or the most times out of 100, etc? Can you give me a link to read up on these quarterback singles playoffs? Sounds interesting.

You can downplay it... but it's a black mark on an otherwise amazing career. Peyton tends to come up short when it matters most. That's been the book on him since his days at Tennessee.

Manning in the playoffs (19 games): 453/718 for 5,389 yards (63.1%), 29 TDs and 19 INTs (1.53 ratio), passer rating of 88.4, yards/attempt of 7.51. 23 carries for 27 yards and 3 touchdowns.Brady in the playoffs (18 games): 395/637 for 4,108 yards (62.0%), 28 TDs and 15 INTs (1.87 ratio), passer rating of 85.5, yards/ attempt of 6.45. 42 carries for 68 yards and 2 touchdowns.

So does Brady also come up short when it matters most? Or are they both pretty decent- you know, since their playoff numbers are basically identical- and maybe their teams' playoff W/L records are a result of something other than QB performance?

It is a team game, but no player on the field has more control or influence over wins/losses than the QB.

9-10 vs 14-4.

 

[shortbow]

Ummm... I didn't say Manning had better numbers this year, did I?

No, you said "Brady has NOT put up better regular season numbers over the last few years. Manning has more yards every season except one, better completion percentage in all but one season, they've split the TD passes, Manning better in 2, Brady better in 2, in fact in 2009 Manning was better in nearly every category... I'm sure you'll excuse Brady due to him recovering from knee surgery, but when Manning has recovered from knee surgery it hasn't seemed to hurt him at all."

Exactly, so to answer my question (which you dind't) I did NOT say Manning had better numbers than Brady this year...Manning and Brady have had comparable numbers (when Brady played) over the last few years ... few meaning more than one, and over meaning as a group, not on an individual basis.

You can't try to use the last 4 years as a span of data, then try to say the year Brady was out (during that 4 year span) shouldn't count when comparing the two. Manning threw more TDs that year than Brady, that's a fact, regardless of the "why." There's no way to know what Brady would have put up in TDs, he only had 28 the year he came back, and Manning had 27 the year Brady missed, it's possible Brady would have thrown more TDs that year, it's also possible he wouldn't have. What happened is he missed most of the season, and didn't throw a TD in the 11 passes he did throw, which is pretty meaningless.

As for the reason I picked the last four years, there are a couple reasons. First, in 2006, Brady was throwing to a receiving corps led by Reche Caldwell. The improvement in talent at WR to something closer to the level Manning has enjoyed throughout his career led to a notable and predictable increase in Brady's numbers. And despite your past protestations, we now know that it wasn't just Moss, because we saw Brady put up MVP caliber numbers without him, or Welker, because this was Welker's worst year as a Patriot. Second, it's not cherry picking to show a span of Brady's career in which he outperformed Manning. I think eveyone, including me, gives Manning credit for putting up big regular season numbers for an extended period of time. The question in comparing the two was whether Brady was capable of putting up the same kind of numbers. And he's answered that question by doing it repeatedly.

So, using the last 4 years is ok because "now Brady has a cast of WRs comparable to Manning" I love how you continue to act like Branch is not a good WR, when in fact, when healthy he's an exceptional WR, he's just had troubles staying healthy. And "closer to", as if not as good but almost? Moss/Welker as a combo are pretty much better than anything Manning ever had. Even this season, despite it being "Welker's worst as a Patriot", Branch Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are easily on par with the best set of Colts WRs Manning EVER had... plus a better running game than Manning has had since the days of Edge.BTW, what Brady has done "better" than Manning the last few years is throw TDs. And that's not all that's involved in QBing. Manning has more yards this year and last. Over the last TWO years, Manning has thrown more TDs (66 to 64). Heck, Manning even has a better comp % this year, despite throwing nearly 200 more passes, and playing against defenses who did not have to defend the run.

Oh, as far as Indoors/Outdoors... this year and last year Manning had a much higher rating outdoor than indoor. So it's blatantly wrong to say his rating is higher because he plays indoors. It's likely his rating would be higher if he played more outdoors, since outdoor football favors WRs versus DBs.

We could go on and on, but it won't matter. Manning bashers seem to all be Brady lovers, who need to bash Manning to prop up Brady.

The fact is, if Manning's defense and special teams were half as good as Brady's typically have been, Manning would already have more rings. Manning has been expected to carry the Colts by himself pretty much every season. The Patriots have always had more balanced teams, with better coaching, and better fundamentals. Anyone who uses the # of rings to judge how good or bad a player is lacks a basic understanding of team sports.

And anyone trying to pin this past weekends loss on Manning, or even thinking it supports a "choker" argument doesn't know what they're talking about. He had a nearly 70% completion percentage, while only once throwing to Reggie Wayne (the reason Manning bashers like to say he's successful), and a 108.9 QB rating, no INTs despite the Jets fortifying their secondary purely to be prepared to face Peyton Manning.

But if Manning "choked" against the Jets, what did Brady do against Baltimore last year? Did Brady choke against the Giants? He had a worse game than Manning did on Saturday. Despite beating SD that season, it's arguable that Brady played worse in that game than Manning did Saturday. Did Brady choke against Indy in 2006? Sure seems that way to me...

I guess we can say that Manning was a choker early in his career, but Brady is the choker later in his career. If we want to call things objectively that is... but I highly doubt that's in the Brady fans repertoire.

TLRManning lover/Brady Basher that cant admit any of Mannings short comings or respect any of Bradys success.

Doesnt matter, time will tell and the realists already know it. Peyton Manning is a great QB, could beat the Patriots any given sunday, but to suggest the opposite isnt true is dumb and to perpetuate the idea that Brady hasnt done more with less and be more successful is ridiculous.

The history of this argument on FBGs and everywhere else comes down to Brady side saying "were more successful" which is true, and the Manning side saying "Your only successful because of your (Coach/Defense)" which is less than true, they obviously play a role in it, but how do you measure a QB skill? Its easy to measure success. They have comparatively the same stats splitting almost everything, the biggest difference being milestones and post season success and Brady is far and away the winner of those.

 

[switz]

Doesnt matter, time will tell and the realists already know it. Peyton Manning is a great QB, could beat the Patriots any given sunday, but to suggest the opposite isnt true is dumb and to perpetuate the idea that Brady hasn't done more with less and be more successful is ridiculous.

The history of this argument on FBGs and everywhere else comes down to Brady side saying "were more successful" which is true, and the Manning side saying "Your only successful because of your (Coach/Defense)" which is less than true, they obviously play a role in it, but how do you measure a QB skill? Its easy to measure success. They have comparatively the same stats splitting almost everything, the biggest difference being milestones and post season success and Brady is far and away the winner of those.

My only issue with your post is the two bolded statements...I don't think Brady has done more with less - different strengths, sure, but Brady's weapons have almost always been on par with Peyton's, regardless of draft pedigree. If you want to argue drat pedigree to say that Manning's WRs/TEs are better, than you would have to argue that Manning is better as well, since he was a 1st rounder while Brady is a 6th rounder. You can't use the draft position argument in one case and not the other.

The second bolded point, sure Brady has had more post season success, no one argue that. However when you look at their numbers, it's obvious that Brady's success (more than a few wins due to Vinatieri's leg) is more dependent on his "weaker" supporting cast, than on him himself.

Brady and Manning are both going to go down as all time greats. People will no doubt argue forever over which was better. However, no one (unless they are a Steeler fan) argues that Bradshaw is better than Marino, because Bradshaw has rings and Marino doesn't. And when it's all said and done, I think Manning will both likely win another ring, and be viewed as the overall better QB, even if Brady finishes with more rings, which is also very likely.

They are very close in overall accomplishment, and which you prefer is likely to do with how much credit you give a QB for post season success, or in some cases where you live.

I don't think anyone could argue that Belichick isn't a far better coach than anyone Manning has had. Just look at Caldwell's stupid TO yesterday (and Peyton's obvious disgust with it) for evidence of the inept coaching Manning has had to deal with at times. They would have won if that TO hadn't been called.

 

[kyoun1e]

I don't think Brady has done more with less - different strengths, sure, but Brady's weapons have almost always been on par with Peyton's, regardless of draft pedigree.

This is clearly something Brady and Manning fans will never agree on.Earier in the decade I can't fathom this argument. Later on in this decade, post Harrison and Edge, I can see it with the arrival of Dillon, Welker, and Moss.Early on in Manning's career, having to face Harrison, Wayne, Edge, and Clark was downright terrifying. And don't tell me Manning made ALL these guys. If you watched this team with your own eyes it was pretty clear these guys weren't run of the mill talents. Did Manning make them better? Sure. But he made good to great players even better.Maybe NE had a better D and coach during the earlier part of the decade, but comparing the above weapons to the likes of D. Branch, T. Brown, D. Givens, R. Caldwell, etc. continues to be ridiculous.KY

 

[bostonfred]

Tobias, this is cherry picking. Look at how effortlessly switz does it:

BTW, what Brady has done "better" than Manning the last few years is throw TDs. And that's not all that's involved in QBing. Manning has more yards this year and last. Over the last TWO years, Manning has thrown more TDs (66 to 64). Heck, Manning even has a better comp % this year, despite throwing nearly 200 more passes, and playing against defenses who did not have to defend the run.

You accidentally forgot interceptions. I'm sure those don't matter in this conversation. Fewer of Manning's passes hit the ground, that's for sure. But you're right about the run game. Manning had a pair of first round picks running the ball, but Brady had the benefit of elite talents like Lawrence Maroney, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, and a couple games from a Favre-aged Fred Taylor.

Oh, as far as Indoors/Outdoors... this year and last year Manning had a much higher rating outdoor than indoor. So it's blatantly wrong to say his rating is higher because he plays indoors. It's likely his rating would be higher if he played more outdoors, since outdoor football favors WRs versus DBs.

Manning threw twelve INTs in three weeks. That skews his passser rating, but not as favorably as you seem to claim. Your made-up reasoning that outdoor football favors WRs in this context is absurd. Manning's career numbers outdoors are substantially worse than his numbers indoors, like most QBs. Brady has a better career passer rating than Manning outdoors, and Brady has a better career passer rating than Manning indoors.

 

[bostonfred]

Manning in the playoffs (19 games): 453/718 for 5,389 yards (63.1%), 29 TDs and 19 INTs (1.53 ratio), passer rating of 88.4, yards/attempt of 7.51. 23 carries for 27 yards and 3 touchdowns.Brady in the playoffs (18 games): 395/637 for 4,108 yards (62.0%), 28 TDs and 15 INTs (1.87 ratio), passer rating of 85.5, yards/ attempt of 6.45. 42 carries for 68 yards and 2 touchdowns.So does Brady also come up short when it matters most? Or are they both pretty decent- you know, since their playoff numbers are basically identical- and maybe their teams' playoff W/L records are a result of something other than QB performance?

That's because Manning's best games were better, numbers-wise, than Brady's best games. Manning led the Colts to 49 points against Denver in back to back years and had a field day against a KC team that was one of the most one sided teams in recent history. Manning's four best statistical games in the playoffs were 1506 yards, 15 TDs, and 1 INT. Those are incredible numbers. But they're also a huge statistical outlier - he won four games, but it didn't really matter if he won 49-10 or 21-10. In his other 15 games, he has 3783 yards, 14 TDs, and 18 INTs. But it's not fair to cherry pick. So let's look at Manning's ten best playoff performances:246 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT290 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT304 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT310 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT333 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT349 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT377 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT377 yards, 5 TD, 0 INT402 yards, 3 TD, 2 INT458 yards, 4 TD, 1 INTNow those are some very good numbers. He didn't win all of these games, of course. The Colts were 6-4 in these games. But not surprisingly, the team tends to do better when he does better. Such is the value of a QB in the NFL. In his worst nine games, though, Manning has stats like this:137 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT170 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT194 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT225 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT227 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT237 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT238 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT247 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT268 yards, 1 TD, 3 INTHe's 3-6 in those games. And when we talk about how Manning was not the driving force between his Superbowl run, it's worth noting that three of these games were during his Superbowl winning season, and one was during his 49 TD season. See if you can pick them out without looking them up. It's edifying.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Manning's reputation won't suffer, it'll be what it is now. I think most people who watch football know that Peyton Manning is one of the top 2 Qb's in the league and he has a SB ring that even his haters can't take away. So not winning a SB won't damage is reputation but the other side of the coin here is that not winning another Super Bowl won't further his reputation from where he is right now.

I think prior to last year's Super Bowl, everyone (most everyone) was ready to put Peyton Manning past Tom Brady on "their list" of Qb's. Peyton would have been a multi SB winner, his numbers and consistentcy are incredbile, his comebacks, just the way he commands an offense............but they lost the game.

That allowed for all the nay sayers to swoop in and throw in all the stats about his playoff record and stats over the years. Throw in this year, where Manning didn't have his greatest year and the fact Tom Brady most likely had a MVP year and possibly a SB year, now it's looking like Tom Brady might nudge past Manning.

I like both guys, I guess if I had to choose I like Manning a little more but if you're being as honest as possible, if Brady wins the SB this year, how do you not nudge him past Manning. If he falls short, then this will also be Tom's 2nd time (SB vs. Giants) where he led his team as heavy favorites and came up short, and his seemingly invisibility in the playoffs takes a hit as well.

For me in this on going saga, if Brady wins the SB he takes the lead down the stretch if I had to rank these guys. If they don't win it, they're neck and neck with the rest of their careers to determine the outcome.

In the end, if you hate Brady or Manning you're really missing out. These two guys are unbelievable at what they do and we're all really lucky to watch these guys play. In 20 years young fans will ask about guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as they "heard" or "saw" on film that these guys were great players, sort of like many younger fans now talk about Joe Montanta. Try to enjoy these two guys for what they do because they won't be around forever.

 

[kyoun1e]

7 times one-and-done in the playoffs.

Interesting. I didn't realize that quarterbacks had some sort of "playoffs." What do they do? See who can throw the ball the furthest, who can throw it through a tire from the longest distance or the most times out of 100, etc? Can you give me a link to read up on these quarterback singles playoffs? Sounds interesting.

You can downplay it... but it's a black mark on an otherwise amazing career. Peyton tends to come up short when it matters most. That's been the book on him since his days at Tennessee.

Manning in the playoffs (19 games): 453/718 for 5,389 yards (63.1%), 29 TDs and 19 INTs (1.53 ratio), passer rating of 88.4, yards/attempt of 7.51. 23 carries for 27 yards and 3 touchdowns.Brady in the playoffs (18 games): 395/637 for 4,108 yards (62.0%), 28 TDs and 15 INTs (1.87 ratio), passer rating of 85.5, yards/ attempt of 6.45. 42 carries for 68 yards and 2 touchdowns.

So does Brady also come up short when it matters most? Or are they both pretty decent- you know, since their playoff numbers are basically identical- and maybe their teams' playoff W/L records are a result of something other than QB performance?

It's the losses I'm interested in. Manning has a 9-10 playoff record. His performance in his losses was sub-par. What's more striking is that in some cases, he underperformed expectations severely coming into the game understanding the team's regular season performance.For example:

1999 -- Indy at home vs TN. Indy comes in at 13-3 averaging 24.6 pts per game. Indy holds TN 19 pts, but they come up with only 16 pts, their third lowest output of the season. Manning is 19-43-227-0-0. That's a stinker.

2000 -- 10-6 Indy averaging 26.8 pts per game goest to Miami. 17 pts scored, their 2nd lowest of the season, and Manning is 17-32-194-1.

2002 -- 10-6 Indy faces a Jets team with what can best be called a porous D allowing 336 pts all year. Manning plays his WORST GAME OF THE YEAR going 14-31-137-0-2 and Indy puts up zero points.

2003 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 27.9 pts/game. Prolific offense. Rolls through first two playoff games scoring 41 and 38 pts against Denver and KC respectively. Manning goes into NE...in some cold weather...and throws 4 picks and has his third lowest passer rating (35.5) of his CAREER.

2004 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 32.6 pts per game. Ridiculous. Looking unstoppable. 5th highest scoring offense in NFL HISTORY. What happens? Indy held to 3 pts vs. NE. Manning again, plays his worst game of the year going 27-42-238-0-1 with a passer rating of 69.3.

Even Indy fans must have been like, WTF after these games. Admit it. These were STINKERS. All regular season, points here, yards there, record breaking performance, TDs over there...blah blah blah...but then out of nowhere, severe underperformance.

In the end, records, yards, and TDs accumulated in the regular season don't matter. It's performance in the crunch and WINS when it counts.

The more I look at Manning's playoff record the more I see Brett Favre.

Manning needs to start winning PLAYOFF GAMES to avoid falling into the above comparison. And that's a hit in reputation (that may not have hit quite yet, but it's looming).

Forget about Brady. Get .500 in the playoffs and win another bowl. Then we talk.

KY

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Rings matter. If Dan Marino had a ring I think a lot of conversations would include arguments as to why he's the best of all time. Now he's just "one of the best." He's Dan Marino, and relegated to a qualifier because he has no titles (that's the reason imo).

You also have to be compared to your contemporaries, and Brady and Manning will always be compared together. Bottom line is Brady has been much more successful than Manning when it comes to winning when it counts. Manning wins a lot but Brady is a winner.

I'm not a fan of either team and I respect both players. Manning has a ring so he gets to be "in the discussion." But for all the Manning hype, you kind of want to see more than one championship out of that career. He's only in a tie for most rings in his own family, for goodness sake. And his little brother's accomplishment was bigger and better. He beat Brady, after all.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's the losses I'm interested in. Manning has a 9-10 playoff record. His performance in his losses was sub-par. What's more striking is that in some cases, he underperformed expectations severely coming into the game understanding the team's regular season performance.For example:1999 -- Indy at home vs TN. Indy comes in at 13-3 averaging 24.6 pts per game. Indy holds TN 19 pts, but they come up with only 16 pts, their third lowest output of the season. Manning is 19-43-227-0-0. That's a stinker. 2000 -- 10-6 Indy averaging 26.8 pts per game goest to Miami. 17 pts scored, their 2nd lowest of the season, and Manning is 17-32-194-1. 2002 -- 10-6 Indy faces a Jets team with what can best be called a porous D allowing 336 pts all year. Manning plays his WORST GAME OF THE YEAR going 14-31-137-0-2 and Indy puts up zero points.2003 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 27.9 pts/game. Prolific offense. Rolls through first two playoff games scoring 41 and 38 pts against Denver and KC respectively. Manning goes into NE...in some cold weather...and throws 4 picks and has his third lowest passer rating (35.5) of his CAREER. 2004 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 32.6 pts per game. Ridiculous. Looking unstoppable. 5th highest scoring offense in NFL HISTORY. What happens? Indy held to 3 pts vs. NE. Manning again, plays his worst game of the year going 27-42-238-0-1 with a passer rating of 69.3.Even Indy fans must have been like, WTF after these games. Admit it. These were STINKERS. All regular season, points here, yards there, record breaking performance, TDs over there...blah blah blah...but then out of nowhere, severe underperformance.In the end, records, yards, and TDs accumulated in the regular season don't matter. It's performance in the crunch and WINS when it counts.The more I look at Manning's playoff record the more I see Brett Favre. Manning needs to start winning PLAYOFF GAMES to avoid falling into the above comparison. And that's a hit in reputation (that may not have hit quite yet, but it's looming).Forget about Brady. Get .500 in the playoffs and win another bowl. Then we talk.KY

First, I like the post. It's the most reasonable one you've made on the topic. Cheers.Sure, he's had some stinkers in the playoffs. So has Brady. Or, if he hasn't, then he's had fewer games in which he disproportionately carried his team to victory. That HAS to be the case, you see, because their playoff passing number are virtually identical. The difference you see in the team's records has been that Brady's defense, or turnovers, or kicker, or whatever, bailed the team out more often than Manning's. I don't understand why you can't see that. If you'd like I can list for you all the games in which Brady posted numbers similar to or worse than the games that you called "stinkers" and the rest of the team bailed him out and got the W- but I'm sure you know them, too. You can start with the first five playoff games of his career, all wins, in which he averaged 202 yards passing, .6 TDs, and .6 INTs. That is to say, he AVERAGED numbers similar to some of the games you call stinkers. And it goes on from there- I'm sure you'd classify last year's loss to Baltimore as a stinker, yes? And there's a few more on his resume, Ws and Ls, also.I don't see how you can look at two guys with virtually identical numbers in a set of games and not reach the conclusion that they performed at a similar level in those games ... and that therefore any disparity in the results of those games is due to something other than differences in their performance. It seems like common sense.ETA: Of course Manning and the Colts frequently underperform in the playoffs relative to season averages. So have Brady and the Pats offense, and pretty much every other offense in the history of football. It's because the average defense you face in the playoffs is much better than the average one you face in the regular season. Again, I would think this would be common sense.

 

[kyoun1e]

It's the losses I'm interested in. Manning has a 9-10 playoff record. His performance in his losses was sub-par. What's more striking is that in some cases, he underperformed expectations severely coming into the game understanding the team's regular season performance.For example:1999 -- Indy at home vs TN. Indy comes in at 13-3 averaging 24.6 pts per game. Indy holds TN 19 pts, but they come up with only 16 pts, their third lowest output of the season. Manning is 19-43-227-0-0. That's a stinker. 2000 -- 10-6 Indy averaging 26.8 pts per game goest to Miami. 17 pts scored, their 2nd lowest of the season, and Manning is 17-32-194-1. 2002 -- 10-6 Indy faces a Jets team with what can best be called a porous D allowing 336 pts all year. Manning plays his WORST GAME OF THE YEAR going 14-31-137-0-2 and Indy puts up zero points.2003 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 27.9 pts/game. Prolific offense. Rolls through first two playoff games scoring 41 and 38 pts against Denver and KC respectively. Manning goes into NE...in some cold weather...and throws 4 picks and has his third lowest passer rating (35.5) of his CAREER. 2004 -- Indy 12-4 and averaging 32.6 pts per game. Ridiculous. Looking unstoppable. 5th highest scoring offense in NFL HISTORY. What happens? Indy held to 3 pts vs. NE. Manning again, plays his worst game of the year going 27-42-238-0-1 with a passer rating of 69.3.Even Indy fans must have been like, WTF after these games. Admit it. These were STINKERS. All regular season, points here, yards there, record breaking performance, TDs over there...blah blah blah...but then out of nowhere, severe underperformance.In the end, records, yards, and TDs accumulated in the regular season don't matter. It's performance in the crunch and WINS when it counts.The more I look at Manning's playoff record the more I see Brett Favre. Manning needs to start winning PLAYOFF GAMES to avoid falling into the above comparison. And that's a hit in reputation (that may not have hit quite yet, but it's looming).Forget about Brady. Get .500 in the playoffs and win another bowl. Then we talk.KY

First, I like the post. It's the most reasonable one you've made on the topic. Cheers.Sure, he's had some stinkers in the playoffs. So has Brady. Or, if he hasn't, then he's had fewer games in which he disproportionately carried his team to victory. That HAS to be the case, you see, because their playoff passing number are virtually identical. The difference you see in the team's records has been that Brady's defense, or turnovers, or kicker, or whatever, bailed the team out more often than Manning's. I don't understand why you can't see that. If you'd like I can list for you all the games in which Brady posted numbers similar to or worse than the games that you called "stinkers" and the rest of the team bailed him out and got the W- but I'm sure you know them, too. You can start with the first five playoff games of his career, all wins, in which he averaged 202 yards passing, .6 TDs, and .6 INTs. That is to say, he AVERAGED numbers similar to some of the games you call stinkers. And it goes on from there- I'm sure you'd classify last year's loss to Baltimore as a stinker, yes? And there's a few more on his resume, Ws and Ls, also.I don't see how you can look at two guys with virtually identical numbers in a set of games and not reach the conclusion that they performed at a similar level in those games ... and that therefore any disparity in the results of those games is due to something other than differences in their performance. It seems like common sense.ETA: Of course Manning and the Colts frequently underperform in the playoffs relative to season averages. So have Brady and the Pats offense, and pretty much every other offense in the history of football. It's because the average defense you face in the playoffs is much better than the average one you face in the regular season. Again, I would think this would be common sense.

There's a lot in your post I agree with.I guess one of the points that I'd like to stress is the context surrounding these stinker games for Manning. I watched these games. I remember the Indy offense during this time well. I myself considered them borderline UNSTOPABLE. As a New England fan, I questioned how we could possibly stop Manning.And then out of nowhere, terrible performance.I mean, as Indy fans, were you not furious with Manning after these games? Or are these fans (unlike northeast fans) incapable of anger? (And I say this with great sarcasm as someone who was born and raised in the Northeast, but has had the pleasure of living in the midwest for a stretch).And defense wasn't an issue in these games. Indy's D held the opposition down. Non-issue.In the early days, I'd bet you're right when it comes to Brady's performance in the playoffs. He got the job done but his stats were probably pedestrian. But then again, he wasn't entering these playoff games with the prolific production in the regular season. His performance vs. expecations were vastly different.Now, if Sunday night, Brady goes 17-41-225-1-3...AFTER he's had a historic season in terms of passing efficiency...then Ok, Brady has an absolute stinker on his resume. I'll be SHOCKED and UPSET and I'll ADMIT IT. As for the Baltimore game, this game was over in the first few minutes. A stinker? Eh...if you want to classify it as one, go ahead. But I think most would agree that game was not on Brady.KY

 

[TobiasFunke]

There's a lot in your post I agree with.I guess one of the points that I'd like to stress is the context surrounding these stinker games for Manning. I watched these games. I remember the Indy offense during this time well. I myself considered them borderline UNSTOPABLE. As a New England fan, I questioned how we could possibly stop Manning.And then out of nowhere, terrible performance.I mean, as Indy fans, were you not furious with Manning after these games? Or are these fans (unlike northeast fans) incapable of anger? (And I say this with great sarcasm as someone who was born and raised in the Northeast, but has had the pleasure of living in the midwest for a stretch).And defense wasn't an issue in these games. Indy's D held the opposition down. Non-issue.In the early days, I'd bet you're right when it comes to Brady's performance in the playoffs. He got the job done but his stats were probably pedestrian. But then again, he wasn't entering these playoff games with the prolific production in the regular season. His performance vs. expecations were vastly different.Now, if Sunday night, Brady goes 17-41-225-1-3...AFTER he's had a historic season in terms of passing efficiency...then Ok, Brady has an absolute stinker on his resume. I'll be SHOCKED and UPSET and I'll ADMIT IT. As for the Baltimore game, this game was over in the first few minutes. A stinker? Eh...if you want to classify it as one, go ahead. But I think most would agree that game was not on Brady.KY

I see where you're coming from now. I personally don't like to consider earlier performance when evaluating a player in a certain situation, because you essentially end up punishing a player for being good in situation A as much as you end up praising a player for being good in situation B. It seems like you're basically saying that Manning isn't very good in the playoffs because he's so amazing in the regular season. To analogize to another sport- it's like saying that the scratch golfer who shoots an average of 72 in the club championship every year isn't as good of a golfer as the 5 handicap that averages the same score, or, to take the extreme opposite, the 15 handicap who somehow shoots 75 every year in the club championship. And that's even before we get to the fact that NFL playoff defenses are better than NFL regular season defenses, so you'd expect some dropoff (I guess the analogy there would be a scratch golfer shooting 80 on the US Open course?) But I do see where you're coming from. By the way, I'm not a Colts fan.

 

[kyoun1e]

I see where you're coming from now. I personally don't like to consider earlier performance when evaluating a player in a certain situation, because you essentially end up punishing a player for being good in situation A as much as you end up praising a player for being good in situation B. It seems like you're basically saying that Manning isn't very good in the playoffs because he's so amazing in the regular season. To analogize to another sport- it's like saying that the scratch golfer who shoots an average of 72 in the club championship every year isn't as good of a golfer as the 5 handicap that averages the same score, or, to take the extreme opposite, the 15 handicap who somehow shoots 75 every year in the club championship. And that's even before we get to the fact that NFL playoff defenses are better than NFL regular season defenses, so you'd expect some dropoff (I guess the analogy there would be a scratch golfer shooting 80 on the US Open course?) But I do see where you're coming from. By the way, I'm not a Colts fan.

Kinda on the same page here.If we're sticking with golf, I'd say Manning is the Phil Mickelson of the NFL. Supremely talented. Does have a win in a major. Piled up wins in off the radar tournements. In the heyday was the clear #2 to Tiger. But has inexplicably stunk up the joint when it's counted in some major tournaments.Comparing golf and NFL probably not a good idea, but you catch my drift.I'm sure Indy fans will love that comparison.KY

 

[omahabrad]

I think winning the Super Bowl has more weight to being considered a great QB than it should. Granted Qb is the most important on a team but no other position is judged by this when considering the GOAT at a certain position. Winning the Super Bowl should only have this much importance when judging coaches. If winning the Super Bowl means this much Kurt Warner has to be in the running for the greatest. He's won a Super Bowl, has had some of the best performances in the SB and has many SB records. Then Terry Bradshaw has also to be considered he's won 4.

 

[bostonfred]

If you'd like I can list for you all the games in which Brady posted numbers similar to or worse than the games that you called "stinkers" and the rest of the team bailed him out and got the W- but I'm sure you know them, too. You can start with the first five playoff games of his career, all wins, in which he averaged 202 yards passing, .6 TDs, and .6 INTs. That is to say, he AVERAGED numbers similar to some of the games you call stinkers. And it goes on from there- I'm sure you'd classify last year's loss to Baltimore as a stinker, yes? And there's a few more on his resume, Ws and Ls, also.

After accusing me of cherry picking earlier, it takes a lot of hubris for you to make this post. 1) The first five games of his postseason career? Why not six to make it the first two seasons? Oh, that's because Brady threw for 354 yards and 3 TDs in the Superbowl in his sixth game. And during his next three games - another Superbowl run - Brady had 600 yards and 5 TDs. So let's stop at five games. 2) Oh, and those first five games of his postseason career include a game he had to leave midway through because of an ankle injury. 115 yards, 0 TD and 0 INT in less than a half of play isn't a bad game, he got hurt. And he returned early from injury to win the Superbowl the next week - they didn't get two weeks in between for him to heal, either. 3) The first five games of his postseason career also include the snow game against the Raiders, where he "only" had 312 yards. And you left out his rushing TD against the Raiders. They also include another snow game against Manning's Colts, in which Brady's 237 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT game looks significantly better than Manning's 237 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT game in the same conditions. And it also includes a -5 Fahrenheit day against the Titans, the coldest day of football I can remember. 4) In the fourth and fifth game of your sample size, Brady put up better numbers than either of the QBs he faced. This is particularly notable since it was McNair and Manning, the co-MVPs that season. And lest you say I'm making excuses for Brady but not doing the same for Manning, I'd LOVE to look at the games instead of the numbers in the Manning games, too - I think it makes my case more strongly than just the numbers. The Steelers game is one of the most memorable ones, since it looks like an OK statistical day, but Manning had three straight gifts in a row, including an oveturned Polamalu interception and an unheard of Bettis fumble on the goal line, and every time he got the ball back, he blew it in a new and different way.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Didn't Manning lead the Colts down the field for a TD following the overturn of the Polamalu INT? How is that blowing it?

Anyway, it is always entertaining seeing both switz and bostonfred being as biased as possible in favor of their guy, so keep it up, guys. This is good fun to read.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If you'd like I can list for you all the games in which Brady posted numbers similar to or worse than the games that you called "stinkers" and the rest of the team bailed him out and got the W- but I'm sure you know them, too. You can start with the first five playoff games of his career, all wins, in which he averaged 202 yards passing, .6 TDs, and .6 INTs. That is to say, he AVERAGED numbers similar to some of the games you call stinkers. And it goes on from there- I'm sure you'd classify last year's loss to Baltimore as a stinker, yes? And there's a few more on his resume, Ws and Ls, also.

After accusing me of cherry picking earlier, it takes a lot of hubris for you to make this post. 1) The first five games of his postseason career? Why not six to make it the first two seasons? Oh, that's because Brady threw for 354 yards and 3 TDs in the Superbowl in his sixth game. And during his next three games - another Superbowl run - Brady had 600 yards and 5 TDs. So let's stop at five games. 2) Oh, and those first five games of his postseason career include a game he had to leave midway through because of an ankle injury. 115 yards, 0 TD and 0 INT in less than a half of play isn't a bad game, he got hurt. And he returned early from injury to win the Superbowl the next week - they didn't get two weeks in between for him to heal, either. 3) The first five games of his postseason career also include the snow game against the Raiders, where he "only" had 312 yards. And you left out his rushing TD against the Raiders. They also include another snow game against Manning's Colts, in which Brady's 237 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT game looks significantly better than Manning's 237 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT game in the same conditions. And it also includes a -5 Fahrenheit day against the Titans, the coldest day of football I can remember. 4) In the fourth and fifth game of your sample size, Brady put up better numbers than either of the QBs he faced. This is particularly notable since it was McNair and Manning, the co-MVPs that season. And lest you say I'm making excuses for Brady but not doing the same for Manning, I'd LOVE to look at the games instead of the numbers in the Manning games, too - I think it makes my case more strongly than just the numbers. The Steelers game is one of the most memorable ones, since it looks like an OK statistical day, but Manning had three straight gifts in a row, including an oveturned Polamalu interception and an unheard of Bettis fumble on the goal line, and every time he got the ball back, he blew it in a new and different way.

This was intended as a specific response to kyoun1e's post regarding "stinkers" he'd drawn from the pool of Manning playoff performances. It wasn't supposed to represent Brady's playoff performance overall. Sorry you seem to have taken it that way.My belief is that over 18 or 19 games, the breaks for and against tend to equalize (for example, you highlight Manning's lucky breaks in a game vs. the Steelers but ignore Brady's obvious llucky breaks in that Raiders game even though you discuss it) and you are what the numbers say you are. The numbers say that Brady and Manning are very similar in the playoffs- remarkably similar, really. You're obviously never going to think that's the case, because you're a Patriots fan. That's fine. I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you. If you think your selective memory paints a more complete picture than 18/19 games worth of hard data, we really don't have a common ground on which to continue this discussion.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Oh, and while I usually lean more towards Brady in these arguments, and think Manning's overall postseason record leaves a bit to be desired, I do think that the 20-3 loss to NE in the divisional round following the '04 season is a bad example. Remember, that game was a freaking blizzard, and while you can say, "Brady had to deal with it, too," he is used to playing in that environment more than Manning is, so while Manning has the edge of playing in a dome a lot more than Brady, playing outside more gives Brady a huge advantage in games like that. Also, it is not like Brady lit it up that game either. Their respective passing numbers in that game were:

Manning 27/42 for 238 yards with 0 TDs and 1 INT

Brady 18/27 for 144 yards with 1 TD and 0 INTs

In short, the Patriots won that game because of their vastly superior running game. In that game, the Patriots ran for 210 yards; the Colts ran for 46. I'd say that the QB whose team is running the ball really well has a MASSIVE advantage over the QB whose team is not, especially when playing a game in a blizzard.

 

[bostonfred]

This was intended as a specific response to kyoun1e's post regarding "stinkers" he'd drawn from the pool of Manning playoff performances. It wasn't supposed to represent Brady's playoff performance overall. Sorry you seem to have taken it that way.

My belief is that over 18 or 19 games, the breaks for and against tend to equalize (for example, you highlight Manning's lucky breaks in a game vs. the Steelers but ignore Brady's obvious llucky breaks in that Raiders game even though you discuss it) and you are what the numbers say you are. The numbers say that Brady and Manning are very similar in the playoffs- remarkably similar, really. You're obviously never going to think that's the case, because you're a Patriots fan. That's fine. I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you. If you think your selective memory paints a more complete picture than 18/19 games worth of hard data, we really don't have a common ground on which to continue this discussion.

This is what I find frustrating about your accusations of bias. You continue to dismiss what I'm saying as bias in lieu of convenient misrepresentations, either of my arguments, or of the facts, and when I refute them, you go back to the same convenient misrepresentations. It's a common tactic and it's probably easier for you to believe you're right if you do it, but it's double frustrating when you come into the debate with an inate bias against me - "you're obviously never going to think that's the case because you're a Patriots fan" - as if that somehow lessens my argument when you can't stand toe to toe on the strength of your own. This is one of my favorite topics, because I'm a Patriots fan. It's fun to be on the winning side of an argument. I obviously enjoy discussing Brady's superiority over Manning and believe Brady has a chance to make a case as the greatest ever. But whether I want something to be true or not doesn't change whether it's true.

Yes, Brady had a lucky break in the Raiders game. I think that's been mentioned before. Manning has had similar lucky breaks - like the reversal of the Polamalu interception that was turned over and the Bettis fumble at the one - but we don't talk about them because he still lost the game. If Brady hadn't come back to win the Raiders game - yes, with huge help from Vinatieri - we wouldn't be talking about one call from a playoff game ten years ago. Similarly, if Manning had won the game this past weekend on the back of a 47 yarder from Vinatieri and another 50 yarder with less than a minute left, we wouldn't be talking about Manning's failure to convert in the red zone or his inability to get one more first down or his mediocre, 225 yard, 1 TD day in a game that his kicker and defense played every bit as well as they did for the Patriots in the games people claim Brady only won because of his team.

As for your case that their postseason total numbers are similar, I responded to that above. Manning has had some fantastic postseason games, when he romped Denver twice to the tune of 49 points not once but twice. It's nice that he threw a bunch of TDs in a 49-10 blowout, but I'm sure he'd trade three of those TDs for just one in this last week's game. Manning's had a lot of those "stinkers" in the playoffs, and throwing for a garbage time TD in a blowout win doesn't magically even things out. I'd also much rather have a QB keep the game close, not throw picks, and score at the end, than a QB who would either be great or suck.

Brady's numbers have been steadier - fewer yards, fewer INTs. He rarely loses the game for his team. He keeps them in it, sometimes getting out to a big lead, other times making the big comeback at the end, but basically playing winning football. The numbers might not be as flashy, but the odds of winning are much better. About half of Manning's games have sucked, but half have been really good. And by sucked, I mean throwing multiple picks, or getting shut out, or throwing for under 200 yards. If Manning's going to suck in half his games, and be great in the other half, then the odds of him having three straight good games are about 1 in 8. Do you see why that is bad for his chances of winning a Superbowl? And, as I mentioned above, Manning had three of his worst games ever during the Superbowl run.

 

[bigmiiiiike]

Manning and the Colts have always lacked the killer instinct. The Pats/Brady have it. All too often, the Colts are content to have Manning march them down the field, and then run the ball twice unsuccessfully, and then throw on 3rd and goal from the 8. Sometimes it leads to a TD, sometimes it doesn't, but when it doesn't they are forced to settle for field goals, and at the end of the game when you're in a nailbiter you wish you would've had TDs on those earlier opportunities. BB would have an F*** you mentality and unleash Manning (like he does with Brady) as possibly the greatest asset of all time, and score a far higher percentage of TDs in the redzone, and TDs as a percentage of total points scored, IMHO.

The quandry of Manning is that he passes the eye test as the GOAT. Everyone watches him play and thinks, "this guy should have 8+ rings by now..." It may be unfair, but when he is SO MEDIOCRE in the playoffs (compared to the top 20 or so QBs ever), and compared to how he grades in the "eye test", he leaves much to be desired.

 

[TobiasFunke]

...As for your case that their postseason total numbers are similar, I responded to that above. Manning has had some fantastic postseason games, when he romped Denver twice to the tune of 49 points not once but twice. It's nice that he threw a bunch of TDs in a 49-10 blowout, but I'm sure he'd trade three of those TDs for just one in this last week's game. Manning's had a lot of those "stinkers" in the playoffs, and throwing for a garbage time TD in a blowout win doesn't magically even things out. I'd also much rather have a QB keep the game close, not throw picks, and score at the end, than a QB who would either be great or suck. Brady's numbers have been steadier - fewer yards, fewer INTs. He rarely loses the game for his team. He keeps them in it, sometimes getting out to a big lead, other times making the big comeback at the end, but basically playing winning football. The numbers might not be as flashy, but the odds of winning are much better. About half of Manning's games have sucked, but half have been really good. And by sucked, I mean throwing multiple picks, or getting shut out, or throwing for under 200 yards. If Manning's going to suck in half his games, and be great in the other half, then the odds of him having three straight good games are about 1 in 8. Do you see why that is bad for his chances of winning a Superbowl? And, as I mentioned above, Manning had three of his worst games ever during the Superbowl run.

I stand by what I said. Manning has a meaningless TD or two in a blowout on his playoff resume. So does Brady. They each have a few stinkers, however you define it. I'm not gonna do some sophisticated statistical analysis to determine who deviates more from the mean, but spending a few minutes looking at the playoff careers of each, I don't see much difference. You could argue that Manning maybe has a couple more pure stinkers than Brady, but on the flip side, almost all of them came early in Manning's career (with one notable exception in a game that his team won despite his performance) while Brady has far more mediocre playoff games in the last five years. In the end, I think it all evens out. You obviously disagree, and short of running the sort of deviation analysis I mentioned before, there's really nothing I can do to convince you. And frankly, even that deviation analysis wouldn't mean much, because it wouldn't capture whether and how that deviation affected the team's result, i.e. whether the team would have won or lost without a great game or a stinker.

 

[shortbow]

...As for your case that their postseason total numbers are similar, I responded to that above. Manning has had some fantastic postseason games, when he romped Denver twice to the tune of 49 points not once but twice. It's nice that he threw a bunch of TDs in a 49-10 blowout, but I'm sure he'd trade three of those TDs for just one in this last week's game. Manning's had a lot of those "stinkers" in the playoffs, and throwing for a garbage time TD in a blowout win doesn't magically even things out. I'd also much rather have a QB keep the game close, not throw picks, and score at the end, than a QB who would either be great or suck. Brady's numbers have been steadier - fewer yards, fewer INTs. He rarely loses the game for his team. He keeps them in it, sometimes getting out to a big lead, other times making the big comeback at the end, but basically playing winning football. The numbers might not be as flashy, but the odds of winning are much better. About half of Manning's games have sucked, but half have been really good. And by sucked, I mean throwing multiple picks, or getting shut out, or throwing for under 200 yards. If Manning's going to suck in half his games, and be great in the other half, then the odds of him having three straight good games are about 1 in 8. Do you see why that is bad for his chances of winning a Superbowl? And, as I mentioned above, Manning had three of his worst games ever during the Superbowl run.

I stand by what I said. Manning has a meaningless TD or two in a blowout on his playoff resume. So does Brady. They each have a few stinkers, however you define it. I'm not gonna do some sophisticated statistical analysis to determine who deviates more from the mean, but spending a few minutes looking at the playoff careers of each, I don't see much difference. You could argue that Manning maybe has a couple more pure stinkers than Brady, but on the flip side, almost all of them came early in Manning's career (with one notable exception in a game that his team won despite his performance) while Brady has far more mediocre playoff games in the last five years. In the end, I think it all evens out. You obviously disagree, and short of running the sort of deviation analysis I mentioned before, there's really nothing I can do to convince you. And frankly, even that deviation analysis wouldn't mean much, because it wouldn't capture whether and how that deviation affected the team's result, i.e. whether the team would have won or lost without a great game or a stinker.

Win 3 superbowls in first 5 years, two best seasons ever in the last 5. Mediocre.

 

[TobiasFunke]

...As for your case that their postseason total numbers are similar, I responded to that above. Manning has had some fantastic postseason games, when he romped Denver twice to the tune of 49 points not once but twice. It's nice that he threw a bunch of TDs in a 49-10 blowout, but I'm sure he'd trade three of those TDs for just one in this last week's game. Manning's had a lot of those "stinkers" in the playoffs, and throwing for a garbage time TD in a blowout win doesn't magically even things out. I'd also much rather have a QB keep the game close, not throw picks, and score at the end, than a QB who would either be great or suck. Brady's numbers have been steadier - fewer yards, fewer INTs. He rarely loses the game for his team. He keeps them in it, sometimes getting out to a big lead, other times making the big comeback at the end, but basically playing winning football. The numbers might not be as flashy, but the odds of winning are much better. About half of Manning's games have sucked, but half have been really good. And by sucked, I mean throwing multiple picks, or getting shut out, or throwing for under 200 yards. If Manning's going to suck in half his games, and be great in the other half, then the odds of him having three straight good games are about 1 in 8. Do you see why that is bad for his chances of winning a Superbowl? And, as I mentioned above, Manning had three of his worst games ever during the Superbowl run.

I stand by what I said. Manning has a meaningless TD or two in a blowout on his playoff resume. So does Brady. They each have a few stinkers, however you define it. I'm not gonna do some sophisticated statistical analysis to determine who deviates more from the mean, but spending a few minutes looking at the playoff careers of each, I don't see much difference. You could argue that Manning maybe has a couple more pure stinkers than Brady, but on the flip side, almost all of them came early in Manning's career (with one notable exception in a game that his team won despite his performance) while Brady has far more mediocre playoff games in the last five years. In the end, I think it all evens out. You obviously disagree, and short of running the sort of deviation analysis I mentioned before, there's really nothing I can do to convince you. And frankly, even that deviation analysis wouldn't mean much, because it wouldn't capture whether and how that deviation affected the team's result, i.e. whether the team would have won or lost without a great game or a stinker.

Win 3 superbowls in first 5 years, two best seasons ever in the last 5. Mediocre.

Sigh.I said more mediocre playoff games in the last five years- which is to some degree a matter of opinion, but I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate. How you translated that into me concluding that Brady was mediocre is beyond me. Especially after I stated clearly earlier in this very thread, maybe on this page, that I think Brady is easily one of the greatest of all time. You don't do your fellow Patriots fans any favors with nonsensical posts like this.